Dismissed

M/S. Vibha Agrotech Ltd, v. Additional Industrial Tribunal-Addl.Labour Court, Hyd

Telangana HC13 Mar 2023WP/16961/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No substantive reasoning provided. The High Court directly dismissed the Writ Petition for non-prosecution because the petitioner's counsel failed to appear for several listed hearings despite notices being served between February 1st and March 13th, 2023. The order contains only a list of dates and notices without legal discussion.

What did the court decide?

None granted. Writ Petition dismissed for non-prosecution.

M/S. Vibha Agrotech Ltd, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE

¶5

PRESENT^-.

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:16961 oF 2003

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Vibha {grotgclr Ltd.,. 501, Subhan Sirisampada Complex, plot No.6-3-1 090/4/,1, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director P.Vidya Sagar.

AND

...PET|T|ONER

Additional lndustrial rribunal-Additional Labour court, Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad,^'lst Floor, Chandra Vihar Building,'tr,t..t.trla*et nojO Hyderabad.

¶14

Mr.P.Satyanaayana, S/o. Late Sri B.Krishna Rao, F/o.H.No. S-33, plot No. 71, Ranga Nagar Colony, P.O.Balanagar Township, Hyderabad _ SO0O37.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot t;he constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more specifically one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records from the firsl respondent tribunal and quash the impugned orders of first respondent tribunal dated 24.7.2003 in l.A.No. 40 ot 2oo1 in l.D.No.77 of 2000 in not deciding the "preliminary issue" whether the second respondent herein is a workman or not within the definition of section 2(a) of lndustrial Disputes Act 1947 inspite of the specific plea taken bythe petitioner herein in the above said l.A. and evidence let in by both the pa(ies in this regard by postponing the same to decide it as final issue along with other issues in the main l.D.as contrary to the provisions of l.D.Act, 1947, exfacie not sustainable and an error apparent on the face of the record by further directing the first respondent tribunal to decide the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner herein in l.A.No.4O of 2001 in l.D.no. 77 of 2OOO afresh in accordance with law.

¶17

il2il

¶18

t.A. NO: 1 OF^{2003(WPMP. NO: 21069 OF 2003)} --petition^{underSection151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to stay} of all further^{proceedings in l.D.No.77 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent} tribunal^{pending disposal of the main Writ Petition on the file of this Hon'ble Court.} Counsel for^{the Petitioner: SRl. B. KRISHNA MOHAN (NOT PRESENT)}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.1: GP FORLABOUR}

¶20

Counset for^{the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED}

¶21

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶22

/,)

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK^REDDY

ORDER:

\ \

On 01.02.2023, when the^present Writ Petition was taken up, there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, the^present Writ Petition was directed to be posted under the caption 'For Orders' on 09.02.2023. Thereafter, on 09.02.2023, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, notice was ordered to the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed on 24.02.2023, on which date, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, the matter was directed to be listed on 27.02.2023 under the caption 'For Dismissal'. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶29

Having regard to the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not interested to purstry the present Writ Petition.

¶30

AAR, J W.P.No. 16961 of 2003

¶31

¶32

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for

¶33

non-prosecution.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha[[ stand

¶35

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

SD/. C. PRAVEEN^KUMAR ASSISTAAT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// <AP SECTION OFFIGER

¶37

¶38

To,' -'1. One CC to SRI B. KRISHNA MOHAN Advocate-tOiupl- .

¶39

,'. i*o CCs to^e fioitiO"ui,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶40

Two CD^CoPies

CHR GJPJ ?/

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310312023

ORDER

W.P.No.16961 of 2003

THE Sr4
<br>O
1 1 APR z[IJ
*

¶49

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON-PROSEGUTION WITHOUT GOSTS

¶50

v?
\o
^)
q/

M/S. Vibha Agrotech Ltd, v. Additional Industrial Tribunal-Addl.Labour Court, Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vibha Agrotech Ltd, v. Additional Industrial Tribunal-Addl.Labour Court, Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra Bhuyan, Hyderabad and 2 Others Vs Govt.of Ap Byprl.Secy.for Housing, Hyd.and 2 Others

Khursheed Ahmed Khan and 10 Ors, Vs Housing Dept., Rep. by Prl. Sec. and 5 Ors.

joseph sriharsha and mary indraja educational society Vs Sri M. Jagadeeswar

Abdul Hakeem,Nizamabad Dist Vs Apsrtc,Md,Hyd,and 2

Tippana Latchi Reddy Vs Ganesh

India Pentecostal Church of God represented by President Vs E.S.Yohan